EPA

facebook_page
twitter_page

Last quote about EPA

Robb Fraley - Monsanto Company
I would put RNA in the suite of really advanced, next-generation technologies that are adding to the excitement from a research perspective.feedback
share this quote
NEW Jun 23 2017
The latest person who has talked about EPA is Scott Pruitt: “With respect to the proposed cuts on personnel, that is something that we plan to achieve through attrition, continuation of the hiring freeze and the initiation of buyouts. About 20 percent of the agency is eligible for retirement today. That's going to increase over the next several years.”. You’ll find on this page all the other quotes of Scott Pruitt and all the other people that have spoken about EPA. You can select these people and their quotes by date, by name, and you can easily have access to the articles from which they originated.
Automatically powered by Storyzy
Take our quote verification challenge and find out !

All quotes about EPA

Scott Pruitt

About 20 percent of the agency is eligible for retirement today, and that's going to increase over the next several years. That's how we're going to address the proposed cuts to personnel.feedback

David Joyce - GE Aviation

Cleaning up the lakes isn't about correcting mistakes from the past, but creating new opportunities and a brighter future for our shoreline communities.feedback

George Wyeth

We're people who worked at EPA over years and decades. We've seen lots of different policy approaches, lots of different policy viewpoints. [But] when you look at a budget proposal of this kind, it raises serious concerns about the agency's capacity and integrity.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

It is unconscionable that this unprecedented loophole for oil and gas pollution will increase dangerous smog, methane, and cancer-causing benzene when commonsense solutions are at hand. Every day that these clean air safeguards are delayed, thousands of oil and gas wells across the country will emit dangerous pollution in the air, harming the health of our children.feedback

Kathleen Sgamma

Both rules vastly exceeded federal authority. In the case of the BLM rule, the bureau tried to assume authority that resides with the states and EPA to regulate air quality. In the case of the EPA rule, the agency attempted to regulate methane without conducting a methane endangerment finding, as required by the Clean Air Act. The actions today by the agencies are a first step to correcting that federal regulatory overreach.feedback

Meleah Geertsma - Natural Resources Defense Council

In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law. The Trump administration does not have unlimited power to put people's health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this. Stopping methane leaks is a no-brainer -- avoiding wasted gas, creating jobs, fighting climate change and cutting cancer-causing pollution all at once. We will not stand for this blatant polluter giveaway.feedback

Alyssa Hall

I felt like we were being attacked on a daily basis from headquarters. A lot of my projects were being cancelled or postponed indefinitely, so I was left with nothing to do. If it was a project associated with climate change people at headquarters would pick up the phone rather than email. Staff were paranoid that their programs were going to get cut if they mentioned climate change. One day it was fine and then it was like you were being slapped in the face every day.feedback

Scott Pruitt

This is not a message to anyone in the world that America should be apologetic of its CO2 position. We're actually making tremendous advances. We're just not going to agree to frameworks and agreements that put us at an economic disadvantage and hurt citizens across this country.feedback

Cynthia Giles

To bring cases you need money for monitoring equipment, engineering issues, management of millions of documents – all that would be zeroed out in this budget. Enforcement is focused on the biggest threats to public health, cases the states can't and won't do. The message this budget sends is that enforcement laws aren't a priority for this administration, which is very concerning.feedback

Liz Bowman

America's miners and drillers are getting back to work under President Trump with the seventh straight month of job creation, after 25 consecutive months of decline in the previous administration.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt was referring to mining, which includes coal.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

It's something that states like Wyoming, California, Colorado and Ohio are already doing.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

It delivers almost half of the smog reductions and more than half of the methane reductions and 90 percent of toxic air pollution reductions. There's absolutely no assurance to the public, who stand to benefit from these protections, that this will happen in the absence of enforceable safeguards. It's something that states like Wyoming, California, Colorado and Ohio are already doing.feedback

Chris Wallace

As the president's EPA administrator, isn't that a conversation you need to have?feedback

Laurence Tubiana

Of course US government CAN legally downsize its contribution but SHOULD Not.feedback

Kellyanne Conway

President Trump believes the climate is changing and he believes pollutants are part of the equation.feedback

David Konisky

I do think the refusal to acknowledge climate change as a serious problem facing the United States and the world, as well as the reckless decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement, does risk alienating moderate Republicans and Independents.feedback

Chris Wallace

Aren't you focusing on the wrong thing? Aren't you and the president focusing on protecting the horse-and-buggy business just as cars come online?feedback

Scott Pruitt

When we joined Paris, the rest of the world applauded … because it put this country at disadvantage. It's a bad deal for this country. We're going to make sure as we make deals we're going to put the interests of America first. The focus in the last several weeks was centered on the merits and demerits of the Paris climate agreement. The president has indicated the climate is changing, it's always changing. I've indicated the same. Well, frankly, George, I think the whole question is an effort of trying to get it off the point.feedback

Scott Pruitt

This president's deregulation agenda, particularly in the energy space, is making a substantial impact around the country. No. I think what's also being missed here is when you look at how we generate power in this country, we need fuel diversity.feedback

J. David Cox

Y'all go downstairs now. Y'all go downstairs and send me up some more EPA folk.feedback

Scott Pruitt

With this action, you have declared that the people are rulers of this country once again.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The world applauded when we joined Paris, and you know why? I think they applauded because they knew it was going to put this country at an economic disadvantage. And the reason European leaders ... that I think they want us to stay in, is because they know it will continue to shackle our economy. The United States has a seat at the table. After all, we're the United States.feedback

John Walke

Mr. Pruitt has emerged as a foreman of a wrecking crew, rather than an architect. It is easy to initiate that hostile agenda with a skeleton staff, press releases and instructions to Justice Department attorneys to file motions in court. That's the easy part. The hard part is navigating the multi-year legal process to actually reverse legal protections, withstand the political outcry and to have those reversals upheld in court.feedback

Drew Edmondson

While I'm disappointed in what he's doing [in Washington], I'm certainly not surprised. Pruitt's positions are very similar to what the president enunciated during the campaign.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt is implementing President Trump's executive orders to protect the environment, save manufacturing jobs and promote American energy independence.feedback

Scott Segal

He's not afraid to express his point of view. He's a pretty bold guy. The White House culture is much more, you go in hitting and attack.feedback

Basil Seggos

We strongly disagree with their conclusions and maintain that the significant amount of contamination left in the river threatens both public health and the environment.feedback

Catherine McCabe - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

At this time, we do not believe that the data, the science or the law support the EPA imposing a requirement on GE to do more dredging.feedback

Kirsten Gillibrand

I am disappointed that the EPA couldn't muster up the courage to do the job they set out to do and clean up the Hudson. This decision is now entering a 30-day comment period before it is made final, and I encourage all New Yorkers to raise their voices and demand that the EPA finish the job of removing the remaining PCBs.feedback

David Doniger - Natural Resources Defense Council

On the heels of news reports that the U.S. will walk away from a global commitment to combat climate change, President Trump is sabotaging headway the U.S. has already made. The Trump administration is giving its friends in the oil and gas industry a free pass to continue polluting our air. ... We will fight Trump's latest polluter giveaway in court.feedback

William Ruckelshaus

His climate-related budget cuts reflect willful ignorance of an enormous threat.feedback

Christine Todd Whitman

A budget to me was always a policy document. Every regulation promulgated by EPA is based in science.feedback

Thomas Burke

God forbid, if we have to clean up a water supply after a terrorist activity, it [would be] in this office.feedback

Thomas Burke

I'm very concerned the IRIS program will be zeroed out. There's an endless challenge by polluters to delay the science.feedback

Paul Ryan

The aspiration and the goal [of this budget] is right on the target.feedback

Tom Carper

I think if [President Obama's EPA administrator] Gina McCarthy had been so inept in responding to the inquiries of our Republican colleagues, they would have shut down the Senate.feedback

Jose Tarazona

The observer from the US-EPA [Rowlands] informed participants during the teleconference about potential flaws in the Kumar (2001) study related to viral infections.feedback

Mick Mulvaney

During the previous administration the pendulum went too far to one side where we were spending too much of your money on climate change and not very efficiently. We don't get rid of it here. Do we target it? Sure. Do a lot of the EPA reductions aim at reducing the focus on climate science? Yes. Does it mean we are anti-science? Absolutely not. I don't need to take this much of your money and to bury it in the ground out in western Texas someplace for domestic security and national security reasons when we have domestic surpluses like we do.feedback

Myron Ebell

I said several positive and a couple very positive things about Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. He's got people on different sides and they are all fighting over who gets these jobs and nobody has the clout except the president to say, Hey fix this, let's get this done.feedback

Leila Conners

Americans are often under the belief that the EPA or their local state environmental agency is going to save them from environmental pollution, and that is simply not the case.feedback

Bill Becker

These cuts will mean delays in meeting health-based air quality standards, less inspections against noncomplying facilities, decreased monitoring in metropolitan areas, and fewer agency staff to address air quality problems.feedback

Charlie Dent

We want a functioning EPA and want their decisions to be based on best practices and science. I don't think anyone is here to kill the agency, we're here to make it work better.feedback

Bill Becker

In short, these cuts will result in more people dying prematurely and getting sick unnecessarily.feedback

Myron Ebell

Paris and the endangerment finding are the two big outstanding issues. It's the first wave of things that are necessary to turn this country around, particularly in the heartland states. The new president doesn't have long before inertia sets in. Pruitt was an excellent choice to head the EPA, and minor disagreements aside, his recent actions have made me even more confident that he will be an outstanding administrator.feedback

Liz Bowman

The budget prioritizes federal funding for work in infrastructure, air and water quality, and ensuring the safety of chemicals in the marketplace.feedback

Bill Becker

You would have thought the administration would have revised the budget in light of the overwhelming adverse reaction they encountered from previous trial balloons, instead ... they doubled down.feedback

David Bloom

Senior leadership made decisions to allocate the carry-over funds set aside earlier this year to address agency's priorities for incentive payments for workforce reshaping, support for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OGC), travel for the Administrator's protective detail, rent, continued space reduction efforts, eDiscovery, agency cloud services and the OGC's workforce support.feedback

Michael Flynn

In light of this guidance, we will begin the steps necessary to initiate an early out/buy out . . . program. Given our resource situation, we will continue a freeze on external hiring. Very limited exceptions to this external hiring freeze may be permitted on a case-by-case basis.feedback

Virginia Ruiz

We were extremely disappointed with the EPA's decision but the administration received a lot of pressure from industry and donors. I don't have much confidence that the current administration will end the use of chlorpyrifos. These are the incidents we are afraid of because workers and their kids are particularly vulnerable to the effects of this pesticide. It's not just the acute incidents but also low level exposures that are harmful to children. It's a double standard to expect farm workers to be exposed to something that's banned from homes.feedback

John D. Paarlberg

Reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and limiting the effects of climate change is one of the greatest moral challenges of our time. For the sake of the most vulnerable among us, for the sake of future generations, for the sake of the planet, please do not undermine the Clean Power Plan and other critical environmental protections.feedback

Karen Sonnessa

Have we failed to learn from history, and forgotten the harm done to our air, water, and wetlands? If anything, regulations need to be more stringent. I remember the days of smog, pollution, and rivers spontaneously combusting. EPA is for the people.feedback

Kristine Anstine

Regulations are PROTECTIONS. Please enforce all existing clean air and water protections and consider creating more.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment. By reversing the previous Administration's steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The agreement will not guarantee or prejudge a particular outcome, but will provide Pebble a fair process for their permit application and help steer EPA away from costly and time-consuming litigation. We are committed to due process and the rule of law, and regulations that are 'regular'. We understand how much the community cares about this issue, with passionate advocates on all sides … We are committed to listening to all voices as this process unfolds.feedback

Raul Grijalva

The Trump administration should listen to the more than 65 percent of Alaskans, 80 percent of Bristol Bay residents and native communities, and 85 percent of commercial fishermen who oppose Pebble Mine.feedback

Ron Thiessen - Pebble

We think we're going to be able to get our permit granted in record time.feedback

Ron Thiessen - Pebble

The Pebble Partnership will advance a progressive mine plan, including mitigation, to be assessed by objective, expert regulators at the US Army Corps of Engineers and a raft of other federal and state agencies – including EPA. Not only are we no longer facing extraordinary development restrictions at Pebble, we will also be assured a fair and predictable permitting review of our proposed development plan.feedback

Taryn Kiekow Heimer - Natural Resources Defense Council

Bristol Bay is too important – economically, environmentally, and culturally – to be sacrificed for the sake of a mine. The Trump administration's willingness to set aside that proposed determination is a disaster. Instead of making America great, it risks America's greatest wild salmon runs.feedback

Alannah Hurley

If there's damage to the watershed and the fisheries, then it would be devastating to our identity as indigenous people. For the company to paint it as federal intervention is completely misleading. The people of Bristol Bay basically cried out to EPA to help us.feedback

Brett Hartl

It obviously sends a psychological message to big mining companies that if they were nervous about getting permits in the past ... that this is their golden opportunity to get their mine through the process.feedback

Luke Popovich

I think the public is in no danger of seeing genuine environmental protection diminished. We're simply asking for a more efficient process.feedback

Tom Collier - Pebble

It will be a busy and exciting year for Pebble and Alaska. Not only will we be rolling out a project that is smaller, with demonstrable environmental protections, we will also be announcing a number of new initiatives to ensure our project is more responsive to the priorities and concerns of Alaskans. We know the Pebble Project must not only protect the world-class fisheries of Bristol Bay, it must also benefit the people of the region and the state in a meaningful way. It is our intent to demonstrate how we will meet those goals in the period ahead.feedback

Wilbur Ross

A company shouldn't have to be hundreds of millions of dollars into risk money without knowing whether there is a real chance it is going to get approved. So one of the problems is the regulation itself. And some of those regulatory problems are at the state and local level.feedback

Wilbur Ross

On permitting, there are a lot of things. Mostly EPA-related issues. Well, if you can imagine that if they (EPA) torture you with getting a permit for a porta potty, how about a permit to actually drill a well? That whole mindset has got to change. They've been eight years trying to get permits to do it. There's been hundreds of millions of dollars (spent), and they still don't even have the assurance that they will get it.feedback

Robert Richardson

It's a very apolitical board. We never discussed politics. We never discussed regulations or proposed regulations. It's just reacting to science outputs and giving recommendations. Doing something like this has no practical effect on regulatory reform, but it may send some message to the administration's base that, We're getting rid of these scientists.feedback

Paula Olsiewski

We're scientists reading nerdy reports, meeting with other brilliant scientists, talking about particle size or spore size. The work [we were] doing is very, very technical. This isn't light reading. But this is very important research. What do you do with dead birds? What do you do with Ebola waste?feedback

Robert Richardson

Our board's responsibility is to review science, to review the scientific outputs [of the EPA Office of Research and Development]. Posters, papers, decision support tools, things of that nature. This is completely separate from the regulatory side of the house.feedback

Courtney Flint

This came as a surprise. I was told that the agency plans to carry out a competitive nomination process to solicit new members. No other reason was given.feedback

Megan J. Palmer

I would say… the country needs more people who have that experience. There aren't many people who study how to manage waste after a biological incident.feedback

Megan J. Palmer

Dr. Paula Olsiewski has a unique and deep level of expertise in biosecurity. She provided support and leadership, through her programs at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, for activities that have formed a basis for current approaches to biosecurity.feedback

Courtney Flint

It's clear from the reports in the media that the current administration has said that they want to replace board positions held by academic scientists with members from industry, so I do not think I am speculating when I say that this is a political move.feedback

Paula Olsiewski

It may be surprising that two women were leading the homeland security committee. But if you were to review our resumés, you would see we're highly skilled, with deep experience and subject-matter expertise. I'm not saying that this is gender-based, but it has been shown that science gets done best when it's done by diverse teams.feedback

Paula Olsiewski

When bird flu hit various poultry farmers, and you're the farmer, where do you go for advice? All these chickens and turkeys have to go somewhere after you euthanize a flock. What do you do with that waste so it doesn't contaminate other flocks? The EPA's homeland-security research team figured out what to do. This is not sexy research.feedback

Robert Richardson

The research takes place, and you hope there's someone at the top asking, What have we learned from the science, so that it can shape policy?' But we didn't discuss that [on the board], and it's outside of our purview.feedback

Courtney Flint

I do not think I am speculating when I say that this is a political move.feedback

J.P. Freire

Advisory panels like BOSC play a critical role reviewing the agency's work. EPA received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board, and we want to ensure fair consideration of all the nominees -- including those nominated who may have previously served on the panel -- and carry out a competitive nomination process. No one has been fired or terminated.feedback

Robert Richardson

The science will show the impact of a particular chemical or toxic substance, but we would never say it should be banned or regulated in a particular way. The EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. It is not to minimize cost to industry.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

There's hiring freeze, so we can't actually replace them until EPA says it's OK. We're kind of hobbled, to say the least. ... They have essentially said they will look to industry scientists for much of their advice.feedback

Robert Richardson

This is a significant step toward the erosion of science, and I think that it is happening subtly throughout the agency.feedback

J.P. Freire

We're not going to rubber-stamp the last administration's appointees. Instead, they should participate in the same open competitive process as the rest of the applicant pool. This approach is what was always intended for the Board, and we're making a clean break with the last administration's approach.feedback

Tom Toles

In another display of bare-knuckled, unprincipled ruthlessness, Scott Pruitt of Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has a solution to the stubborn nature of facts: Replace the scientists who assess those facts with people who will tell you what you want to hear. That’s right — the agenda now is to begin removing actual scientists from the EPA’s Board of Science Counselors and replace them with non-academics. The idea is to replace “the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate.”.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

We have spirited conversations about the science – we don't just rubber-stamp what the EPA wants to do. These people are valuable, highly qualified and highly vetted. It's troubling that political considerations have come into this.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

This administration has made statements not terribly favorable to science. There would be a morality issue if the committee is turned into a political pawn of a certain viewpoint. Our credibility would be destroyed. We would be seen within the scientific community as tainted.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

The committee has been eviscerated. We assumed these people would be renewed and there was no reason or indication they wouldn't be. These people aren't Obama appointees, they are scientific appointees. To have a political decision to get rid of them was a shock. If you have industry hand-picked people, the concern would be that they would have a frequent conflict because we discuss areas that touch upon big industry.feedback

Courtney Flint

In the broader view, I suppose it is the prerogative of this administration to set the goals of federal agencies and to appoint members to advisory boards.feedback

Robert Richardson

I was kind of shocked to receive this news. I've never heard of any circumstance where someone didn't serve two consecutive terms.feedback

Robert Richardson

Today, I was Trumped. I have had the pleasure of serving on the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, and my appointment was terminated today.feedback

Matthew Huber

So the administration has removed a well executed, scientifically valid guide to protecting health – information needed right now not just in the distant future. This seems to be a direct abrogation of the EPA's mission 'to protect human health and the environment.feedback

Matthew Huber

[E]very administration has the right and indeed responsibility to review, update and improve the policies and websites of agencies under their purview, so there is nothing inherently wrong with the EPA website being revised. It does strike me as unusual and irresponsible to take the entire climate change website down at once and not conduct a rolling review and update. This is akin to removing all emergency exit signs from a movie theater while a movie is showing because the upper management has decided they might need to improve their disaster plans.feedback

Kerry Emanuel

In particular, it was careful to describe the uncertainties associated with climate risks, such as rising sea level and changing incidence of extreme weather and climate events. It presented the current understanding of the science and possible solutions in a fair and balanced way. I am sorry to see it go.feedback

Doug Blair

I'm from Pittsburgh, where our skies were dark at noon and people changed their shirts at lunch because they were filthy from the smoke from the mills. I oppose any rollback of environmental protections premised on the 'jobs vs. the environment' dilemma. We can have both.feedback

Emily Key

I actually enjoy breathing clean air and drinking clean water and would find it quite burdensome not to.feedback

Jamie Abelson

Even when companies are forced to pay for the destruction they cause, the amounts they are fined pale in comparison to the profits they make from breaking the rules. EPA must fight to maintain any environmental regulations that protect the health of American workers, communities and ecosystems.feedback

Leonardo DiCaprio

Honored to join Indigenous leaders and native peoples as they fight for climate justice. Join me in standing with them. #ClimateMarch. Today's #ClimateMarch leaves me inspired & hopeful for our future. We must continue to work together & fight for #climatejustice.feedback

J.P. Freire

We want to eliminate confusion by removing outdated language first and making room to discuss how we're protecting the environment and human health by partnering with states and working within the law.feedback

Sheldon Whitehouse

This is the least he can do. But the Office of Special Counsel still must do a thorough investigation to determine whether Administrator Pruitt ran afoul of the Hatch Act.feedback

Scott Pruitt

What happened was the folks that invited me sent out an invitation, post that approval, that didn't comply with federal law and federal ethics law, so we're not going to be able to attend because of the invitation.feedback

Lori Ann Burd

It's outrageous that on the same day the EPA acknowledged these dangerous pesticides are killing bees it also reversed course on mandating restrictions on their use. This is like a doctor diagnosing your illness but then deciding to withhold the medicine you need to cure it.feedback

Sheldon Whitehouse

Scott Pruitt has a long record of dark money fundraising and cozy relationships with big, fossil-fuel political donors. The American people need to know whether he is using his position at EPA to promote the political actors who support him.feedback

J.P. Freire

We worked closely with our ethics counsel to ensure compliance, and when we received the invitation, we understood immediately that it did not conform to our rules and acted accordingly.feedback

Bill Nye

We are in a dangerous place. There is a technique of dismantling government from within, which is the thinking of (Trump adviser Steven) Bannon. They are hiring the least qualified people on the planet to run the agencies, such as Mr Pruitt at the EPA and Ms (Betty) DeVos at the department of education. The idea that regulations are inherently bad is misguided. We will be reminding politicians of the importance of science tomorrow.feedback

Brett Hartl

You can't just take an endangered fish out of the wild, take it to the lab and then expose it to enough pesticides until it dies to get that sort of data. It's wrong morally, and it's illegal.feedback

Lonnie Randolph

Somebody dropped the ball somewhere. Maybe it was intentional, or maybe by mistake. Maybe it was negligence.feedback

Cheryl Rivera

We are here in the West Calumet complex because injustice is here in East Chicago. We are here because environmental racism is here. We are here because climate injustice is here. We are here because thousands of families' lives are at risk.feedback

J.P. Freire

We have had no meetings with Dow on this topic, and we are reviewing petitions as they come in, giving careful consideration to sound science and good policymaking. The administrator is committed to listening to stakeholders affected by EPA's regulations, while also reviewing past decisions.feedback

Demetra Turner

Keep fighting people, keep fighting, because that is what it takes.feedback

Joe Donnelly

There is a budget that is sent over and then there is a real budget that is put together. And the real budget will provide the funds necessary to make sure East Chicago is right.feedback

Andres Restrepo - Sierra Club

Scott Pruitt is continuing his relentless assault on public health and a stable climate at the behest of corporate polluters by seeking to dismantle life-saving methane safeguards. His decision to delay the standards on behalf of his close ally is, quite simply, illegal.feedback

Michael Flynn

In light of this guidance, we will begin the steps necessary to initiate an early out/buy out … program. Given our resource situation, we will continue a freeze on external hiring. Very limited exceptions to this external hiring freeze may be permitted on a case-by-case basis.feedback

Dick Durbin

Such an action would be irresponsible & demonstrate clear disregard for the health and safety of millions of residents of Great Lakes region.feedback

Robert Kaplan

They made pleas for assistance, for help. You really could have heard a pin drop in that room.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The reason I'm here is because it's important that we restore confidence to the people here in this community that we're going to get it right. They can have the confidence that their land, their health is going to be secure in the long-term.feedback

Scott Pruitt

EPA is continuing to follow through with President Trump's Energy Independence Executive Order. American businesses should have the opportunity to review new requirements, assess economic impacts and report back, before those new requirements are finalized.feedback

Thomas Frank

We can't drink the waters. The land we walk upon is contaminated. And we air we breathe is contaminated.feedback

Fred Upton

If true, this report is shocking. Whatever the deficiencies of the Region 5 office, the folks there do play a critical role in protecting human health and the environment.feedback

Michael Mikulka - American Federation of Government Employees

If you close our office, the ability to protect the Great Lakes would be in danger. The work we do here is too important to cut.feedback

James Pew

There's no way it could ever make that showing when it comes to power plants. It's really hard to understand why the administration would want to do this.feedback

Ann Weeks

The Trump Administration and EPA Administrator Pruitt are again playing fast and loose with Americans' health. Seeking to delay the oral argument scheduled for May 18th serves no public purpose whatsoever.feedback

Graham McCahan

Virtually every power plant in America is already in compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Weakening them would be a serious threat to the safety of our food, air and water.feedback

David Michaels

The culture of the trade associations in Washington is to attack any new regulation as burdensome, even though the empirical evidence is that they're easily met, they're not burdensome and they save lives. But injured workers don't have a voice in Washington. Trade associations do.feedback

Ken Cook

The big picture is at every turn, once the transition began, every special interest in the country was signaled, Hey, it's all-you-can-eat.feedback

Rosario Palmieri

This has a tremendous opportunity to be very successful and result in real burden reductions.feedback

Janet McCabe

The signals that they're sending through the way they describe their initiative is the audience they're worried about, to the exclusion of everybody else, is industry.feedback

Jeffrey D. Zients

At a time when many CEOS are focused on the short term and looking to maximize their profitability each quarter, I believe that a lot of their aversion to these regulations reflects a short-term mind-set that values reducing costs over anything else. That's unfortunate, because well-crafted regulations are an important part of creating sustainable and fair economic prosperity in the long run.feedback

Wilbur Ross

This is the first time any administration has canvassed the private sector to find the worst regulatory and permitting problems, and it is axiomatic that you can't solve a problem until you have identified it.feedback

Rick Perry

You might've read in the media that there was much discussion about U.S. energy policy and the fact that we're undergoing a review of many of those policies. It's true, we are and it's the right thing to do.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The last eight years, we had to choose between jobs and the environment, those days are over, noting that President Donald Trump has sent a . We have a president now that says that's a false choice. We have better leadership now. It is something we need to exit, in my opinion. It was an America second or third or fourth kind of approach. China and India had no obligations under the agreement until 2030. We frontloaded [it].feedback

Myron Ebell

I think it's prudent given the continuing activities by the left to foment hatred, and the reported hostility within the agency from some unprofessional activists.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on Chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment … By reversing the previous Administration's steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.feedback

Liz Bowman

We are thankful to the court for granting our motion to postpone oral argument. In light of President Trump's pro-growth agenda, EPA continues to carefully review the broad implications of the 2015 ozone standard and ensure that we are supporting American jobs and protecting human health and the environment.feedback

Seth Johnson

We will continue to fight to protect public health under the Clean Air Act and for the continued implementation of the more protective 2015 smog standards. The EPA has no justification to weaken anything about these key pollution reduction measures, and we'll fight against that. We look forward to having our day in court in the future to fight for stronger protections.feedback

John Walke

President Trump is aiding baseless litigation mounted by Scott Pruitt before he was put in charge of EPA over the consensus of doctors and scientists.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Look, Chris–what we have to keep in mind is that the EPA only possesses the authority that Congress gives it. And the EPA has tried twice to regulate CO₂. As much as we want to see progress on clean air and clean water, with an understanding that we can also grow jobs, we have to do so within the framework that Congress has passed. The tools have to be in the toolbox. The job of administrator is to carry out statutes as passed by this body. In response to the CO₂ issue, the EPA administrator is constrained by statutes.feedback

Eric T. Schneiderman

The law is clear: the EPA must limit carbon pollution from power plants.feedback

Michael Eisen

They're right that government agencies should strive to use science that people have access to. The EPA is problematic when it relies on hidden industry data that people can't evaluate, and the public has every right to be skeptical of those decisions. The best way to protect against that is to have sunshine on the data. This isn't a guy who's politics I would agree on, but that was an example where not hiding a problem had a good outcome. Not every criticism of science is invalid just because it's being made by Republicans.feedback

Erik D. Olson - Natural Resources Defense Council

If the state doesn't have a program, which is true in most states, and if the EPA doesn't have a program, how are you going to have compliance with the lead rules? Basically, this is the guts of the program that protects kids from lead poisoning from paint.feedback

Julia Valentine

Administrator EPA in a more effective, more focused, less costly way as we partner with states to fulfill the agency's core mission.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We've demonstrated through the steps we've taken already, the pre-1994 levels, because of that technology – we can burn coal in clean fashion.feedback

Paul Towers - Pesticide Action Network

Given the science, we thought it seemed practically impossible to not move forward with the ban. We know it can have a profound impact on children's brain architecture and their lifelong learning.feedback

Bonnie Wirtz

By leaving this chemical on the market we are gambling with the lives of children and their long-term wellbeing and they have no choice in the matter. That's reckless and heartbreaking.feedback

Thomas Burke

The board has been incredibly efficient with the use of conference calling and call in. Modern technology has helped the board minimize travel. But the board does need to get together for critical reviews.feedback

Terry Yosie

I also think there is a direct relationship between these proposed budget reductions and legislation that is working its way through Congress to redefine how peer review gets conducted.feedback

William Schlesinger

The unfortunate thing is that this is the main way that the administrator gets scientific advice on things that the EPA proposes.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The President's keeping his promise to deal with that overreach, Chris. It doesn't mean that clean air and clear water is not going to be the focus in the future. We're just going to do it right within the consistency of the framework that Congress has passed. There's a warming trend, that climate is changing and human activity contributes to that change in some measure.feedback

Janet McCabe

We know that a little bit of cheating can mean a lot of air pollution.feedback

John Konkus

We know we can effectively serve the taxpayers and protect the environment. While many in Washington insist on greater spending, EPA is focused on greater value and real results.feedback

Chris Wallace

You think that rewriting and, in fact, doing away with the clean power plan is going to improve air quality, which you say is a major goal?feedback

Chris Wallace

But sir, you're giving me a regulatory answer, a political answer. You're not giving a health answer.feedback

Jeremy Symons

It's one thing to dodge the question, but it's especially weak to hide behind the success of Obama's initiative to justify erasing it all. Pruitt's attempting a complicated trick here – not only trying to sell a bottle of snake oil, but breaking the bottle during the pitch.feedback

Chris Wallace

But sir, you're kind of sugarcoating what you said. The question I have is: What if you're wrong? What if in fact the earth is warming? Simple question. What if you're wrong?feedback

James Delingpole - Breitbart News Network

Not only should he have known the most effective answers to give; but he should have been so confident in the rightness and truth of his cause that he should have been able to seize the moment and make the points that really need to be made about President Trump's environmental policy. … that it is being enacted for the good of science, for the good of the economy and the core mission of Making America Great Again.feedback

Chris Wallace

You're talking about regulatory overreach. But the question is, there are 166 million people living in unclean air, and you're going to remove some of the pollution restrictions, which would make the air even worse.feedback

Scott Pruitt

To demonstrate the leadership that we have shown on this issue with China and India and other nations is very important and discussions should ensue, but what Paris represents is a bad deal for this country. Human activities contribute to that change in some measure.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The real question is how much are we contributing to that and measuring that with precision.feedback

Scott Pruitt

There's a warming trend, the climate is changing and human activity contributes to that change in some measure. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. What Paris represents is a bad deal for this country. We frontloaded our cost. China and India backloaded theirs. That caused a contraction in our economy.feedback

Stan Meiburg

In some ways, the common thread …. is, unless there's an explicit legal mandate that EPA has to do something, that EPA shouldn't be doing it.feedback

John Konkus

EPA will work with the President and Congress to redesign the way we do business to focus on achieving our core responsibilities - working with the states to ensure clean and breathable air, protecting water quality and investing in infrastructure, restoring our communities, ensuring timely review of chemicals and products to ensure safety for American families, all of which will have a positive impact on the environment and the economy.feedback

S. William Becker

This is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they have less research and less peer review, they're going to have less of a foundation on which to base human health-based air quality standards.feedback

Sarah Lamdan

What's really happening is that they're preventing the EPA from doing its job.feedback

Sarah Lamdan

Cancer studies that took 30 years to compile evidence for, studies from natural disasters and chemical explosions – we can't reproduce those events. The way we regulate against our exposure to radioactive waste is we look at studies from Nagasaki and Hiroshima – clearly we're not going to reproduce those.feedback

Lexi Shultz

The bill would exclude some scientists with substantial expertise in their fields from the Science Advisory Board (SAB), [and] the SAB would suffer from the exclusion of valuable insight.feedback

Lexi Shultz

We're concerned that in these situations the EPA could be constrained from using important or relevant research in making decisions.feedback

Cass Sunstein

In the intergenerational context, there are compelling technical as well as ethical reasons to choose a relatively low rate, so as to avoid treating our children and grandchildren as if they are worthless.feedback

Cass Sunstein

Use of a 7 percent rate would be pretty ridiculous – and should be struck down, in court, as arbitrary.feedback

Lamar Smith

Far too often, alarmist theories on climate science originate with scientists who operate outside the principles of the scientific method. The [scientific method] avoids speculation about distant events for which there is no hard proof. Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses. The ability to predict far into the future is impossible. Anyone stating they know what the climate will be in 500 years or even at the end of the century is not credible. All too often scientists ignore the basic tenets of science in order to justify their claims.feedback

Sheryl Kunickis

This is a welcome decision grounded in evidence and science. It means that this important pest management tool will remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation and the world. This frees American farmers from significant trade disruptions that could have been caused by an unnecessary, unilateral revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances in the United States.feedback

Patti Goldman

EPA's refusal to ban this dangerous pesticide is unconscionable. EPA is defying its legal obligation to protect children from unsafe pesticides. We will be going back and asking the court to order EPA to take action now, rather than in 5 more years.feedback

Ken Cook

The chance to prevent brain damage in children was a low bar for most of Scott Pruitt's predecessors, but it apparently just wasn't persuasive enough for an administrator who isn't sure if banning lead from gasoline was a good idea. Instead, in one of his first major decisions as head of the EPA, like a toddler running toward his parents, Pruitt leaped into the warm and waiting arms of the pesticide industry.feedback

Eric T. Schneiderman

We're very confident that the EPA can't simply dismantle the Clean Power Plan and leave nothing in its place. We regret the fact that the president is trying to dial back history, but it's not going to happen.feedback

Ann E. Carlson

The EPA gets challenged a ton, but they win most of the time. And one of the reasons they win, even with conservative courts, is that they're very careful in really examining the science and building an administrative record that demonstrates expertise, and care, and thoughtfulness.feedback

Richard Nixon

I think that 1970 will be known as the year of the beginning, in which we really began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the future generations of America. Even the concept that you need extensive management of resources, like forests and water and soil, because they could otherwise be misused and wasted to the point where you would have crises of supply–even that doesn't get taken seriously in the U.S. until the decades after the Civil War.feedback

Jedediah Purdy

There was a sense among liberal lawyers–rooted in the real experience of the civil-rights era–that maybe the courts could do a whole lot in this domain. People thought it might be possible to redirect all of federal policy in an environment-friendly protection through NEPA suits.feedback

Jedediah Purdy

The really striking thing about the Wilderness Act–beside it just being sort of awesome–is it really is a wonderful law. It's worth reading the preamble and the definition of wilderness, because they look like they were written by John Muir.feedback

Jedediah Purdy

When Waxman-Markey failed, I think a whole generation of reformist thinking went with it. And there's not a paradigm to replace it, though there are reform voices.feedback

Sheldon Whitehouse

The most voracious and malign special interest in American politics – the fossil fuel industry – has captured the Trump administration, installed its top henchmen at the EPA, and gone to work trying to unwind any environmental and public health safeguard that gets in the way of its profits.feedback

Scott Pruitt

That's something that we're going to have to talk about as we go forward.feedback

Scott Pruitt

I think what comes next is a much more humble view of what the EPA's response to CO2 is within the Clean Air Act. We're going to focus on clear air, but we're going to do so in a way that's fair and equitable to all forms of energy in this country.feedback

Scott Pruitt

There's a very fair question that needs to be asked and answered. Are the tools in the toolbox? Does the EPA actually have the tools in the toolbox to address this issue?feedback

Kerry Brown

Gutting the Clean Power Plan is a colossal mistake and defies science itself. Erasing climate change may take place in Donald Trump's mind, but nowhere else.feedback

Ryan Jackson

This is an important moment for EPA. As the Administrator has mentioned many times, we do not have to choose between environmental protection and economic development.feedback

Rick Perry

Today, we're taking a great step in breaking the restraints that have become burdens.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We're not going to allow regulations here at the EPA to pick winners and losers.feedback

Jim Matheson

It has given them much greater flexibility to maintain more reasonably priced and affordable power for our consumers.feedback

Heather Zichal

President Trump's executive order to roll back vital climate and clean air protections this afternoon is the most brazen and transparent assault on the health of Americans in my lifetime.feedback

Richard Revesz

The agency can't just ignore the previous rule. It has to make a sound argument for why its new approach is superior – and prove to the courts that it's not just acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner.feedback

Myron Ebell

This is a great start, and it accomplishes most of the work at the EPA. My feeling is the litigation to try to block the withdrawal of the power-plant rules could tell us really useful input on how to withdraw from Paris and pull out of the endangerment finding.feedback

Al Gore

Today's executive order, directing the EPA to begin rolling back environmental protections and policies including the CPP, is a misguided step away from a sustainable, carbon-free future for ourselves and generations to come. It is essential, not only to our planet, but also to our economic future, that the United States continues to serve as a global leader in solving the climate crisis by transitioning to clean energy, a transition that will continue to gain speed due to the increasing competitiveness of solar and wind.feedback

Thomas E. Perez

True leadership is a president who had the political courage to move aggressively on carbon polluters, while leaving office with the longest streak of private-sector job growth on record. Instead, we have a president who has called climate change a hoax, picked an ExxonMobil CEO as his secretary of state, put a climate science denier at the head of the EPA, and gives a disgraceful handout to his rich friends in the fossil fuels industry.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The President is keeping his promise to the American people this week with respect to the Executive Order coming down on Tuesday.feedback

Scott Pruitt

You know, what was wrong with Paris was not just that it was, you know, failed to be treated as a treaty, but China and India, the largest producers of carbon dioxide internationally, got away scot-free. They didn't have to take steps until 2030. So we've penalised ourselves through lost jobs while China and India didn't take steps to address the issue internationally. So Paris was just a bad deal, in my estimation.feedback

Richard Hobrla

If [the budget] went through as it's proposed, it would be fairly catastrophic.feedback

Bruce Vogt

If we're just talking about blue crabs among the [local jurisdictions], we're sort of only talking about what they can do, and what they can do is control harvest. What the partnership in the bay program provides that's valuable is, we're able to say we think these other factors – habitat, water quality – are also important.feedback

Adam Jonas - Morgan Stanley & Co. International

Of all the things that are likely to drive fuel economy, I would rank the EPA a distant third on the list, behind consumer preferences and the direction of technology.feedback

Mitch Bainwol

Automakers seek certainty, predictability and rationality -- over time -- from the regulatory process. EPA A DISTANT THIRD.feedback

Stephen Hawking

Trump was elected by people who felt disenfranchised by the governing elite in a revolt against globalization. His priority will be to satisfy his electorate, who are neither liberal nor that well-informed. We have already seen this in the promise to build a wall along the Mexican border and the sanctioning of two oil pipelines and the appointment to the Environmental Protection Agency of Scott Pruitt, a man who does not believe carbon dioxide causes climate change.feedback

Stephen Hawking

He should replace Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency. Climate change is one of the great dangers we face and its one we can prevent. It affects America badly, so tackling it should win votes for his second term – God forbid. I have already completed a zero gravity flight which allowed me to float weightless, but my ultimate ambition is to fly into space. I thought no one would take me, but Richard Branson has offered me a seat on Virgin Galactic and I said yes immediately. Since that day I have never changed my mind.feedback

Mick Mulvaney

We are going to get rid of [the EPA] in almost every form.feedback

Morgan Griffith

I am hopeful that the cuts will come to the out-of-control regulatory divisions of the EPA . . . while preserving their core function of helping communities preserve clean water.feedback

Gina McCarthy - United States Environmental Protection Agency

This budget is literally and figuratively a scorched-earth budget. It really represents an all out assault on clean air, water, and land. You just can't put America first when you put the health of its people and its country last, and that's what this budget really represents.feedback

Ken Kimmell - Union of Concerned Scientists

This is a program that is already a bit on life support, so to take another third out of it is really quite harmful.feedback

James Inhofe

The problem I have with the EPA, it's turned into more of an ideological group more concerned with spreading a liberal message (President Barack) Obama had.feedback

Michael McKenna

It's a bit premature to declare the sky is falling. We're in the first couple steps of a thousand-mile journey. This is not where we're going to end.feedback

Julia Valentin

This budget helps refocus the agency on being more effective, more focused, and less costly. It is about empowering the states to be primary implementers of environmental programs on the ground, rather than insist that EPA micromanage them.feedback

Gina McCarthy - United States Environmental Protection Agency

Literally and figuratively, this is a scorched earth budget that represents an all out assault on clean air, water, and land. You can't put 'America First' when you put the health of its people and its country last.feedback

Harold Wimmer - American Lung Association

Congress must reject this budget and start anew with a balanced approach that protects vital health programs in HHS and at EPA (the Environmental Protection Agency). This approach could have devastating impacts on state asthma programs, tobacco prevention and cessation and tuberculosis control.feedback

Gretchen Goldman

There is no reason to think the data is safe. The administration, so far, hasn't given any indication it will respect science and scientific data, especially when it's inconvenient to its policy agendas.feedback

Robert Lightfoot - Nasa

Overall science funding is stable, although some missions in development will not go forward and others will see increases. We remain committed to studying our home planet and the universe, but are reshaping our focus within the resources available to us – a budget not far from where we have been in recent years, and which enables our wide ranging science work on many fronts. This budget also keeps aeronautics on stable footing allowing us to continue our forward movement in many areas, including the New Aviation Horizons initiative.feedback

Robert Lightfoot - Nasa

We remain committed to the next human missions to deep space, but we will not pursue the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) with this budget. This doesn't mean, however, that the hard work of the teams already working on ARM will be lost. We will continue the solar electric propulsion efforts benefitting from those developments for future in space transportation initiatives. I have had personal involvement with this team and their progress for the past few years, and am I extremely proud of their efforts to advance this mission.feedback

John O'Grady

It is a sad day when a group of millionaires and billionaires in Washington can decide what's best for America's health and environment. The U.S. EPA is already on a starvation diet, with a bare-bones budget and staffing level. The administration's proposed budget will be akin to taking away the Agency's bread and water.feedback

Mick Mulvaney

You can't drain the swamp and leave all the people in it. So I guess the first place that comes to mind will be the Environmental Protection Agency – that the President wants a smaller EPA. He thinks they overreach, and the budget reflects that.feedback

Cynthia Giles

[More cuts] won't just drastically reduce EPA enforcement, it will bring it to a halt. Not only will the staff be a shadow of its former self, the inspectors, lawyers and criminal agents who would be left would be unable to do their jobs, because these cuts would zero out the already small amount of funds used to do inspections, monitor pollution and file cases.feedback

John Garder

The administration's proposed budget is a non-starter for our national parks, our environment, and our cultural heritage, and should be dead on arrival in Congress. Agencies like the National Park Service and EPA cannot take care of our treasured landscapes and historical landmarks with further cuts to what are already shoestring budgets.feedback

Craig Butler

Immediately we reached out to the Environmental Protection Agency. Because of the scale of the problem, and the technical knowledge required, we needed their expertise.feedback

Margie Alt - Environment America

Slashing EPA's overall budget by more than a third means the agency cannot adequately enforce our clean air and clean water safeguards. It is basically a 'get-out-of-jail-free card' for polluters. In addition, Trump's proposed budget underfunds environmental issues that matter to millions of Americans – like climate action, clean energy and our national parks.feedback

Mick Mulvaney

You can expect reductions in the EPA that don't line up with the president's view on things like global warming and alternative energies. You will see a reduction in subsidies, a reduction in participation in those types of programs. The core functions of the EPA can be satisfied – beyond the core functions – can be satisfied with this budget.feedback

John Konkus

Administrator Pruitt's comments are perfectly in keeping with the scientific integrity policy. There is an ongoing scientific debate on climate change, its causes and its effects. That debate should be encouraged as the administrator has done, not discouraged as Sierra Club is attempting to do.feedback

David Spence

Careersists’ resistance to Trump doesn’t undermine democracy. It affirms it.feedback

Mick Mulvaney

There is no question, this is a hard-power budget. It is not a soft-power budget. And that was done intentionally. That's what our allies can expect. That's what our adversaries can expect. If he said it in the campaign, it's in the budget. We wanted to know what his policies were. And we turned those policies into numbers. You can't drain the swamp and leave all the people in it. The president wants a smaller EPA. He thinks they overreach and the budget reflects that. If they have a different way to accomplish that, we are more than interested in talking to them.feedback

Elena Saxonhouse - Sierra Club

It's pretty unprecedented to have the head of the EPA contradicting basic scientific facts. It shouldn't just be a piece of paper or some words on a website. It's intended to protect the public from bad decision-making that's not based on real facts.feedback

Andrew Rosenberg

The reviewers had many recommendations for strengthening the report to make it clearer for technical and non-technical audiences. But, the primary findings clearly past muster. What strikes me is the contrast between this report – what the scientists say – and the statements from EPA Administrator Pruitt.feedback

Eddie Bernice Johnson

The result of each bill will be the same–worse science at EPA and less public health protections for American citizens.feedback

Gretchen Goldman

The decision-making process at the EPA is already exhaustingly transparent. [It] already painstakingly collects scientific data and other details from the studies that it relies on to make policy decisions. I know because they asked me for it.feedback

Wendy Wagner

The term doesn't even appear. It's a dramatic departure from the past, and I think it's pulling the wool over the public's eyes.feedback

Gina McCarthy - United States Environmental Protection Agency

They're trying to put a positive spin on it, and for obvious reasons: You're not going to put on a piece of paper that you're not interested in pursuing sound science. They're really designed to prevent us from getting the information we need to protect public health.feedback

Michael Mann

The EPA was a staunch defender of the environment and supporter of climate action under the Obama administration. It is now instead being wielded by the fossil-fuel interests who are running the Trump administration as just another weapon in their war on environmental protection and climate action.feedback

Joseph Stanko - Hunton & Williams

Essentially, it's a mandate that EPA rules follow the Clean Air Act, instead of creating their own new programs.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.feedback

Bill Becker

The brunt of these cuts will be born by people's hearts and lungs and disproportionately effect those in the major metropolitan areas and those who are poor and can't fend for themselves. I hope I'm wrong but I don't see this budget changing that much.feedback

Bill Becker

These cuts would have a devastating impact upon the health of tens of millions of people across the country.feedback

Tom Pyle

I suspect the president and his team are doing due diligence in this area and I'm hopeful they will request that the administrator reviews the endangerment finding. I have kids, I take them camping. I don't want them to get asthma. You can be for the environment and not be for the way the previous administration abused the regulatory process.feedback

Tom Pyle

The president has worked diligently to fulfill his promises and I am confident he will do so. The Clean Air Act was abused by the previous administration to fit their agenda. It's up to Congress to make a decision on CO2.feedback

Scott Pruitt

I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.feedback

David Willett

It's not surprising to hear people are calling after Pruitt contradicted his own agency's science. We're seeing record-setting response rates to mobile alerts, petitions and funding appeals.feedback

John Hudak - The Brookings Institution

For a person who can become so petty in party politics, to launch an agenda that needs help from the other party shows a president who is under-talented. There's a heck of a lot of regulation in this country that protects industry. You can kill the EPA but if you go too far you're going to harm big business in this country. The idea that you can take a hatchet to the federal bureaucracy and always please conservatives is a myth.feedback

Ben Santer - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

We can't afford to reject this clear and compelling scientific evidence when we make public policy. Embracing ignorance is not an option.feedback

Scott Pruitt

I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don't know that yet, we need to continue to debate, continue the review and analysis. Decisions were made at the executive branch level that didn't respect the rule of law.feedback

David Doniger - Natural Resources Defense Council

The mask is off. After obscuring his true views during his Senate confirmation hearings, Scott Pruitt has outed himself as a pure climate denier.feedback

David Doniger - Natural Resources Defense Council

After obscuring his true views during his Senate confirmation hearings, Scott Pruitt has outed himself as a pure climate denier. Having an EPA administrator who claims carbon pollution is not the primary cause of climate change is like having a U.S. surgeon general who says smoking is not the primary cause of lung cancer.feedback

Brian Schatz

Anyone who denies over a century's worth of established science and basic facts is unqualified to be the administrator of the EPA. Now more than ever, the Senate needs to stand up to Scott Pruitt and his dangerous views.feedback

Joe Kernen

Do you believe that it's been proven that CO₂ is the primary control knob on climate?feedback

Scott Pruitt

I believe that measuring, with precision, human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So, no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.feedback

Kevin E. Trenberth

Pruitt has demonstrated that he is unqualified to run the EPA or any agency. There is no doubt whatsoever that the planet is warming and it is primarily due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Rules "very soon. There's going to be an announcement on that very soon, and I think what's concerning to me and I think concerning to the president is how that process occurred. I think that what has been broken in that process is, one, not a recognition of the great progress that's been made with those standards, but two, those in Detroit, those that are manufacturing autos in this country, expressed to the EPA that they wanted to evaluate the impact of the pre